That all depends on the definition for god you are using, and the definition of god is one of the hardest things to nail down in this topsy-turvy world. If you define god as a human "stonewall," then yes, the existence of a god is not impossible.

What definition of god are you using? Once we determine that, we can figure out what method you used to determine that such a being is not impossible.

Quote:

Athe´st Stonewall

Well, thanks for the assumption. The fact is that I am not a stonewall. I have tried many world views, including born-again, fundie Jesusianity, and I find that atheism is the view that best represents the world we see around us. The other beliefs require holding to ideas over actual observation.

But, I doubt you are going to change your view either, "stonewall."

Quote:

Marthin Luther King, Mother Teresa, were do you think they got their strength from ?

I don't consider strength derived from delusion a good thing, even if it results in good outcomes. A parent who gets their kid to stay in bed by telling him that there is a murderer under the bed when there is not one should not be praised.

Besides, I am sure that Mother Teresa and MLK were good people in spite of their faith. I have no faith and I help people regularly. Just the other day, I stopped and helped push a busted car off the freeway and on to the offramp. I am not bragging, only showing that faith is not required for good things to happen. One only needs compassion.

At best, faith leads to what you call "stonewall," and in really bad cases, exploitation and divisiveness. The only people who will continue to fight progress and reality are the faithful._________________The Truth is out there.

First of all, truth is not determined by what YOU think makes sense. Sorry to burst your happy little comfy bubble.

Since people like socrates here, now would be a good time to bring up forms. Truth as we see it is a projection of absolute truth which is a perfect form out there in form land. As is everything else on earth. So saying that truth is or isn't determined by something is to say that your reading of the imperfect projection of it's true essence (which none have experienced) is more valid that his. This inability to know can be applied to any supposed knowledge in a form based world.

Someone who knows stop me if I get too far off, it's been a while since socrates for me.

Well, for starters? The Allegory of the Cave and the 'projection of the absolute truth' (and thus the argument for a world of forms) is Plato.

If you want to talk Socrates, you want to talk the Socratic Method, which involves the negative method of hypothetical reduction. You remove the arguments which are weak and contradictory and suppositional, leaving behind arguments which he says can be attested to be stronger.

Socrates also often said that his wisdom was limited to an awareness of his own ignorance, as opposed to a concrete justification of right and wrong that is based on axiomatic revelation.

However this is all of considerably less importance than to point out that you are reaching for a strange argument here: you're attempting to defend your absolute truth by saying that nobody can really know the absolute truth. By jove, that's what I would call self-defeating.

Despite my intention not to get dragged into a debate I let myself be sucked in. I'll still be avoiding the topic of wether God can be disproven, because this would get too bloody long.

As for calling you a stonewall, indeed, I can't be sure that you wouldn't change your opinion, but your first reaction to a believer posting is flaming. This way you are clearly not aiming for debate, but for a shouting match. This is not the way to change anyone's mind. If you were open minded you would debate people, try to change their views, but with the risk of having to change yours as well, it seems you'd rather not take that risk.

As for reversing the compliment, you are far off. I have no problems with changing my views and have done so on numerous occasions because of good arguments other people put forward, but unlike you my changes are hardly ever as dramatic as Born again to militant Athe´st.

As for strength derived from delusion being a good thing I do not agree with you. Yes you read me correct, I don't care why a person helps another person, as long as he does. Maybe MLK and MT would have done as much if they were athe´st, I don't know, fact is that they did it and that faith was a big factor in it.

Your last point is one where you are completely correct. Faith can lead to all these things, problem is this discussion is not about faith in general. It is about your reaction to WhupAsses post, he did not show any of these things so they are irrelevant to this discussion.

Marthin Luther King, Mother Teresa, were do you think they got their strength from ?

I don't consider strength derived from delusion a good thing, even if it results in good outcomes. A parent who gets their kid to stay in bed by telling him that there is a murderer under the bed when there is not one should not be praised.

Besides, I am sure that Mother Teresa and MLK were good people in spite of their faith. I have no faith and I help people regularly. Just the other day, I stopped and helped push a busted car off the freeway and on to the offramp. I am not bragging, only showing that faith is not required for good things to happen. One only needs compassion.

At best, faith leads to what you call "stonewall," and in really bad cases, exploitation and divisiveness. The only people who will continue to fight progress and reality are the faithful.

but what if the alternative to strength from delusion is to give up completely - or turn to anger and hatred? we mentioned the amish families whose children were murdered in the other thread, and how they hold no hatred towards the family of the man who killed their children, because that is a precept of their religion. other people, without such beliefs, have punished those who were not responsible for the hurt they suffered - is that better?

and the question was the strength to do good, not merely the willingness. the strength to go on, in the face of arrest and persecution and the threat of assassination (for mlk) and the heartbreak of seeing how huge the problem of poverty and disease she was trying to tackle was (for mother theresa). the only thing that can keep you going in such a situation is a strong belief. for some people, the belief is in things like justice, science and so on - things you would undoubtedly support. but those are abstract concepts, often with no hope of ultimate reward. other people need something else, something they (at least) believe to be concrete, and which will reward them for their suffering - in other words, religion.

i am interested to learn that you have spent time believing in various religions. is all this just because you are angry at people who can find comfort in something you ultimately found unsatisfactory?_________________aka: neverscared!

The reason, Yarko, that some atheists say that God's are not impossible is because you cannot invoke mathematical certainty in these kind of arguments. You'll do yourself a great service to remember that, and keep in mind that once you invoke that kind of certainty, any intelligent person can get you bogged into arguments from which you cannot escape.

I just joined up to as that, personally, I think that Tat is just as fucked up in his beliefs as anyone, he doesn't hate christianity, or any other religion for that matter, he just thinks they have a lot of holes and are extremely funny to make fun of. Mabye he doesn't know what he really believes, but he doesn't have a problem making fun of what anyone else believes.

Nah I think you may be right. Religion has a hell of a lot of holes in it, and it is terribly enjoyable to point out faults in it, but it's hard to hate it utterly because people really find solace and joy and other things in it, which is sometimes very important. I find it hard to believe any religion is right, but I don't mind terribly that there IS religion, as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on good things, (eg 'terrorists' using it to justify their actions, or people like MellowFish throwing bibles at people) and as long as it doesn't get highly involved with politics, cos that often spells Doom with a captial D.

Yay for Bart. I like your line of arguments even if they end up against me. You are the most levelheaded person I've seen on this forum.

And yay for mosue too. Great explanation of why faith can be a good thing.

As for yarko, please make a distinction between what is caused by faith and what is caused by religion befoe you attack it._________________Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. -- Frederick Douglass

First of all, truth is not determined by what YOU think makes sense. Sorry to burst your happy little comfy bubble.

Since people like socrates here, now would be a good time to bring up forms. Truth as we see it is a projection of absolute truth which is a perfect form out there in form land. As is everything else on earth. So saying that truth is or isn't determined by something is to say that your reading of the imperfect projection of it's true essence (which none have experienced) is more valid that his. This inability to know can be applied to any supposed knowledge in a form based world.

Someone who knows stop me if I get too far off, it's been a while since socrates for me.

Well, for starters? The Allegory of the Cave and the 'projection of the absolute truth' (and thus the argument for a world of forms) is Plato.

If you want to talk Socrates, you want to talk the Socratic Method, which involves the negative method of hypothetical reduction. You remove the arguments which are weak and contradictory and suppositional, leaving behind arguments which he says can be attested to be stronger.

Socrates also often said that his wisdom was limited to an awareness of his own ignorance, as opposed to a concrete justification of right and wrong that is based on axiomatic revelation.

However this is all of considerably less importance than to point out that you are reaching for a strange argument here: you're attempting to defend your absolute truth by saying that nobody can really know the absolute truth. By jove, that's what I would call self-defeating.

ACTUALLY, [and sorry, I couldn't resist] while the Allegory of the Cave is a metaphor more or less for the life of Socrates, as told by Plato, who admired him, because Socrates viewed education and enlightenment as paramount to ... well, everything ... [generalizing, shh!], it doesn't deal as much with the 'forms' as you'd think ... but I digress.

Look up Anselm.

But, my views on Absolute truth go like this:

There's what's correct, and there's what isn't. I don't see Good or Evil, I see truth and error._________________[karl]